Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,852

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts soil microbial diversity

Open access
Roesch, Luiz F W, Fulthorpe, Roberta R, Riva, Alberto, Casella, George, Hadwin, Alison K M, Kent, Angela D, Daroub, Samira H, Camargo, Flavio A O, Farmerie, William G, Triplett, Eric W·2007·The ISME Journal

Abstract

Estimates of the number of species of bacteria per gram of soil vary between 2000 and 8.3 million (Gans et al., 2005; Schloss and Handelsman, 2006). The highest estimate suggests that the number may be so large as to be impractical to test by amplification and sequencing of the highly conserved 16S rRNA gene from soil DNA (Gans et al., 2005). Here we present the use of high throughput DNA pyrosequencing and statistical inference to assess bacterial diversity in four soils across a large transect of the western hemisphere. The number of bacterial 16S rRNA sequences obtained from each site varied from 26 140 to 53 533. The most abundant bacterial groups in all four soils were the Bacteroidetes, Betaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria. Using three estimators of diversity, the maximum number of unique sequences (operational taxonomic units roughly corresponding to the species level) never exceeded 52 000 in these soils at the lowest level of dissimilarity. Furthermore, the bacterial diversity of the forest soil was phylum rich compared to the agricultural soils, which are species rich but phylum poor. The forest site also showed far less diversity of the Archaea with only 0.009% of all sequences from that site being from this group as opposed to 4%–12% of the sequences from the three agricultural sites. This work is the most comprehensive examination to date of bacterial diversity in soil and suggests that agricultural management of soil may significantly influence the diversity of bacteria and archaea.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ismej.2007.53

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,852

Metadata

Authors
Roesch, L. F. W., Fulthorpe, R. R., Riva, A., Casella, G., Hadwin, A. K. M., Kent, A. D., Daroub, S. H., Camargo, F. A. O., Farmerie, W. G., & Triplett, E. W.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2007-07-05
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
283-290
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2034833171
Cited by
1,852
References
3
FWCI
61.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts soil microbial diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2007.53
The paper
Roesch, L. F. W., Fulthorpe, R. R., Riva, A., Casella, G., Hadwin, A. K. M., Kent, A. D., Daroub, S. H., Camargo, F. A. O., Farmerie, W. G., & Triplett, E. W. (2007). Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts soil microbial diversity. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2007.53

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.